Here is an example of a NAS (affiliate) amzn.to/2VgnRgD

I am a manager of a data center and love to ask this question on interviews. Enterprise NAS appliances are designed to be highly available, with redundant controllers, with dual power supplies, and dual network links (often arranged in LACP teams). NAS serves file systems (in the form of shared folders) to end points (typically end user devices) on a corporate network (the LAN). Now, if you want to use NAS for a non traditional workload (such as an NFS export for VMWare data stores), you'd typically devote switches to that use case to avoid the contention with typical end user LAN traffic (when using the same switches as your LAN) described in the video. The reason SAN is marketed as a faster technology has less to do with bandwidth of the different networks (there are 25, 40 and 100 Gb/s ethernet links as well) and more to do with the fundamental differences between NAS and SAN . SANs share raw disk "blocks" (from a storage "target") to endpoints (typically other servers, or storage initiators) commonly in the form of logical disks (LUNs). Block transactions are faster than filesystem transactions because they operate at a lower level and are overall more simple, so block transactions require less overhead. Filesystem transactions occur "on top of" block transactions. Meaning a simple file copy must be process at the file system level as well as at the block level. The filesystem (which is what the NAS serves) in a SAN environment is handled at each independent endpoint, so the SAN target doesn't have to do any of the file system overhead processing, such as tracking and updating filesystem metadata. The filesystem processing overhead is thereby distributed across each endpoint/server. But if you have a single storage target, you could be bottlenecked at the block level if you have several busy servers attached. If you are trying to compare a NAS to a SAN, realize you are comparing apples to oranges. If you want to make apple pie, the apples are probably a better ingredient. But if you want to make orange juice, you'll want to go with oranges. Similarly NAS is designed for some use cases, and SAN for others. Generally speaking - are you trying to share files with end users (NAS), or are you trying to share disks to servers (SAN)?

I love how the simple nature of these videos never fails to attract the "Well, actually" tech-geniuses, that then proceed to spew a couple paragraphs of tech-jargon in order to show how smart they are.

Dude, this is the BEST video I can find on the Internet that explains NAS SAN clearly for a beginner. So many vids are focusing on all those terminologies which is a nightmare for the audience. Yours is straightforward and comes from real-world..

I don't know how you manage to create videos about the exact things I need to know about. I am extremely thankful for the time you take to make your videos, the animations are fabulous and I can see a lot of time behind. Thank you very much, keep being awesome.

Currently studying for my Network+ and this video was very helpful in explaining the differences between the two! Thanks for putting this kind of content out!

Dude I can’t tell you enough how much I love these animated videos. You helped me learn binary math

I just started working for Pure Storage and I am 100% sure that the trainer used this video to write her training material, literally word by word

You have the greatest videos: simple, yet not primitive, informative, yet not overwhelming.

Absolutely the best explanations on IT concepts on KZfaq. Thank you for your dedicated work to provide easy to understand concepts on complex issues.

i learn much more from videos than from a book. And this channel has some high quality videos

Out of plenty of IT traning videos I have seen or watched, your training videos, Sir, are right on point and your teaching style and animations, pictures, and explanations are comprehensive enough for a six year old to assimilate and understand! Please do not stop making these videos, keep 'em coming! Thank you Sir! ~Respectfully - Anthony

I'm sorry to say that, but this is absolute misconception of these two technologies. In enterprise solutions NAS can be and usually is implemented in a fault tolerance manner. Solutions like EMC Isilon or Netapp C-dot clusters with redundant network connections for instance are as much reliable as SAN devices. The main difference is about file system and data transfer protocol. In NAS file system is already on the device, it's optimized for data sharing across large amount of clients/servers. while on SAN devices only RAW blocks of storage space are presented to the HOSTs. Cause of that SAN is considered very often as faster solutions with lower latency. which finally brings us to protocols of transporting the data. In NAS it's IP which have significant amount of metadata overhead comparing to FCP used in SAN (also different different acknowledgment algorithms). Protocols like FCoE or FCIP or ISCSI are intentionally skipped cause we are talking rather about traditional implementation of SAN which is FCP. Well there are also a lot of other differences like main purpose of use, replication methods and distances, backup techniques and granularity of restore, antivirus implementation and so on. but this is not the topic for you-tube comment ;) Take care and stay "Storage" focus.

You are making some incorrect assumptions about these technologies. NAS is a single system dependent upon a traditional layer 3 ip packet switched network and requires a client implementation for presentation. A SAN is a layer 2+ technology that involves a multitude of systems for providing connectivity/switching across the network and presentation appears native to the OS due to encapsulated SCSI payloads. A NAS can be extremely fault tolerant and redundant and a SAN can be poorly implemented and unreliable. A SAN can be ethernet or fibre channel (note fibre channel is NOT fibre optics, its a protocol for encapsulation of SCSI frames). While this video IS simple, it is also misleading and neglects some finer details that are worth noting to actually clear confusion and get rid of propagating assumptions.

I hated Network topics but your videos made me love it

Your videos are more easier to understand than anyone else on the web. I really wish you would do a A+ or Network+ course.

For visual learners, this channel is a godsend!

Exactly how I wanted to know. Simply great explanation in just 4 minutes !

I came back after several years to this video. I am appreciating how it condenses so well and so much good and correct information into just 4 minutes. Thank you, PowerCert Animations 👍

SAN is fun to play with. Bought some old IBM equipment, pcie SAS controller cards and cables from ebay. Used two debian servers with 40Gbps infiniband. 60 hours spent. worth it :D

Thanks for your concise, tidy video at the same time with informations enough to grasp the essence of the difference between the systems.

Absolutely the best IT materials in the whole universe. There is nothing better than you guys!

Please never stop what you're doing. Your videos are so simple to understand that it really helps a lot of people. Keep up the great work!!!

Dude. This channel is a very good find for me. It explains many tech-related topics and the animation style is amazing.

So many inaccuracies in this article and there are NAS systems that are offer very high levels of redundancy. Remember a NAS can offer either block or file access depending on the applied protocol such as iSCSI, CIFS, or NFS. The best differentiators are that a SAN offers access to storage arrays using purpose specific protocols such as fiber channel while NAS systems utilize TCP/IP networks to either serve files or encapsulate drive commands. The true differentiator is the use if TCP/IP over purpose specific protocols. You can certainly discuss the performance and efficiency aspects about the solutions offered, but this explanation isn't defining them properly to start.

Explained very well, simple to understand. Thank you.

Very nice, clear explanation. Good pace and clear voice. Nicely done and much appreciated!

I love how direct and to the point this channel's explanations are. Another great video. Thanks!

This video is focused on secondary aspects (and some of them are not even correct). The main difference between the two is that a NAS is efficient for one-to-many topologies (many clients per server, with only the server directly connected to the disks and the clients using slower but cheaper links ), while a SAN is much more efficient (and expensive) for cases where each "client" needs full storage bandwidth and/or direct access (for example in the backbone to share the disk arrays between the servers). In the second situation a NAS could become a bottleneck with just one or two clients connected to it, but in a SAN no server is in the middle between the "clients" and the disks. However they are not competing technologies but complementary, as the most common setup is a hybrid of both. NAS servers acting as frontend for networked clients and the SAN as a backbone to share the storage between multiple servers (or few privileged front ends in the need of maximum bandwidth). Also, the SAN "direct access to the disks" from multiple computers is only the ideal world. In reality each disk array has a raid controller, which is just a specialised Linux server typically embedded in the disk array (except some SDS solutions), so even in a SAN there is indeed a "server" in the middle. But still much more efficient as it basically acts as a SCSI or SAS switch, and it can easily be made redundant thanks to SAS dual connections

I have one word for you: Synology. I’ve got three, which do so much more than simple storage. I have two in a HA configuration with bonded network links, and a third which runs DHCP, LACP and Home Assistant on Docker. It’s practically an entire server back end.

Can't explain simpler than this. Great video for anyone who wants to understand the basics.

If I look at the word NAS in the mirror, it will say SAN. Same goes for the word SAN. I shall put this on my resume and apply to a big tech firm, with confidence I will be immediately hired as genius-level lead engineer.

I agree with you guys, not his best video, sadly, but others videos from his KZfaq series is just amazing. The key difference between NAS and SAN is that the first one uses file-level and the second one, block-level. Both can be redundant btw. PD: I know you put a lot of effort into doing these videos, but try to edit this one soon so other people could keep trusting your channel ;) Cheers!!!

I'd love more on this bc again, YOU are THE FIRST to explain that the DIFFERENCE; That SANs are architecturally designed around physical redundancy of each hardware element a NAS is otherwise comprised. This is literally the FIRST EXPLANATION that ever explained the DIFFERENCE. Thank you !! But, if multiple people use the same "content" ... how doesn't it slow down..? Obviously they aren't using 1 array per client ... as there has to be economy of scale over a provision of local data. So HOW do you keep it from slowing down based on the number of users..? And if the users can write data -- that must be sync'd across all the discrete arrays, also, which would be doubly taxing -- 1, for the writes (while reading) and 2. because there're likely permission issues ... that's assuming "multiple arrays that're essentially mirrored". I get that FC can handle the bandwidth with minimal latency, but the drives..? And parity is a lot of IO overhead... no..? Also, are SANs always block-level..? Or can they be object-level..? Again, thank you! Now though, as I mentioned, I'm interested in how it manages keeping the data sync'd. :)

An awesome presentation that explains the important differences perfectly... Thank you!!

Bull's eye! Right on the money 💰. Very crisp and clear in explanation.

Very nice explanation with animation

Some parts are true but some parts are not. If we are talking about entry level devices, most of the comments are true. But in enterprise business, middle or high end devices, all can mixed up. Enterprise scale-out NAS devices have similar reduncany level with SAN devices, can expandable without interruption also can be hundreds of PB capacity. Of course the target learners are important, so as for basic explanation, content is good. : )

Your information is misleading and inaccurate. There are very robust NAS storage systems out there for the data centers and enterprises. The main difference between a SAN and NAS, is a SAN is Block-level storage and a NAS is File-level storage. And in some instants SAN will host a NAS "head" unit to share out a disk volume as a network file share. This is a poor and incomplete explanation of the differences between a NAS and SAN.

Fibre Channel is NOT Fiber Optics! This is how misconceptions start that some industry professionals carry with them for years or even DECADES! Fibre channel is a PROTOCOL and while it does use fibre optics in MANY implementations, it does also have COPPER implementations! Someone tells these beginning techs that fibre channel uses fibre optics and they latch on to it because of some stupid inference like, "Hey! It's in the name! They wouldn't name it fibre channel if it used copper!" Except they did! Many things wrong in this video but the fibre channel one is the type of misconception that propagates and infects for years because beginning techs think they have the right understanding, it sounds right but they never look any deeper into what it is or does. SAN does NOT equal Fibre optics. Many implementations use fibre optics but there are a large number that don't! Also, the inference that fibre channel is the only SAN implementation or, at the very least, the industry default is again misleading. It's as if iSCSI doesn't even exist! iSCSI is NOT necessarily slower, ethernet switches are capable of far greater speeds than fibre channel and performance will vary based on implementation.

Finally I understand the difference between NAS and SAN. Thanks a lot.

Thank you so much for your videos. They’ve helped me pass the A+ 901 Test. Keep up the good work.

Excellent. Very well illustrated with clear, simple explanations. Thank you.

this is actually not true NAS is a Network attached storage. Redundancy depends on the actual system. Speed also depends on the actual system. The main point here is that a NAS is using CIFS/NFS Protocol. its a file based storage. it ha its own file system and can read / write whit different operating system, that's why people call NAS as Unified Storage. SAN is using FC or iSCSI protocol, which are block type protocols. after your mount an iSCSI or FC volume, you need to format it to the given filesystem. Performance and redundancy also depends on the actual system. depending on the system, both can do more than 'just storing data'. NAS can provide unified services, deduplication, data reduction, encryption also there are NAS capable SAN storages on the market, like DellEMC Unity, which can provide NAS services on a selected volume

"Videos for school children and housewives" is a little harsh, but yes the video is skipping over a fair bit of detail. A NAS is nothing more than a file server (SMB/CIFS/NFS etc.) running on dedicated hardware. So they are useful for those situations where a file server would be appropriate (serving files to SMB/CIFS/NFS clients - typically workstations, not servers). The discussion around the "Network" in NAS is not well differentiated from the "Network" in SAN. Both use this term. The key is that a NAS uses an ethernet - TCP/IP network, whereas a SAN uses a dedicated (typically Fibre Channel or FCAL) network. The two types of network are incompatible and cannot be interconnected. The exception is iSCSI, where the lines get blurred. iSCSI is a SAN running on a TCP/IP network and may even share that network with general TCP/IP (LAN) traffic. iSCSI gets you some of the SAN benefits at a fraction of the cost of an FCAL SAN. Note that an FCAL or iSCSI SAN presents itself to the server as one or more SCSI devices and all I/O operations are block level SCSI commands. And yes, a switched FCAL SAN is a very expensive solution, unless you are large enough to justify it and benefit from its advantages. These advantages tend to come in the form of reduced total cost of ownership, due to shared infrastructure, where you have a large, diverse and dynamic server farm (think eBay/Amazon/Google etc.). You get the ability to add, remove and re-use storage quickly and easily (even automatically), reducing total storage needs. The key differences between NAS and SAN are really only important to those than can afford a SAN (typically large organisations). As a NAS shares files, it is ideal where that is the requirement. It is not so good where you really want block level access, as is the case for relational database systems (RDBMS). An RDBMS really should be on block level storage, as you really don't want the overhead, latency or bottlenecks of a NAS system between your RDBMS and your storage. Also boot devices, swap devices, and other applications sensitive to latency and/or bandwidth are likely to be on SCSI devices, not NAS. In these cases if you can't afford a SAN, you might need to consider direct attached storage (DAS), rather than a NAS or iSCSI option. For home use however, I believe only those who need to study SAN technology (probably ICT professionals) would be likely to go anywhere near a SAN and only with really old (i.e. cheap) gear. Most of us would be far more likely to stick with NAS/iSCSI/DAS at home. And no, this won't become obsolete because of the cloud. The cloud inherently uses NAS, SAN and iSCSI under the covers in order to provide its services. The "Cloud" is nothing more than a shared infrastructure technology for the masses (using modern interfaces). Bear in mind that we were doing shared infrastructure 30 - 50 years ago, just for banks, governments and others with deep pockets. And we didn't call it the "Cloud".

Your video saving my tons of time. Thank you so much

This FREE Video: Gives crystal clear explanation of what they are. My Cyber Security class: SANS are multiple file servers that are more secure than NAS.

You guys really are the best of all the cert training videos I wish you did more! Always clear and simple explanations, well done.

NAS can be seen by OS as local drive with iSCSI.

clearly explanations. Nice video for sharing on SAN & NAS

Thank you, helped a lot. Diagrams make it really easy to understand.

Very well illustrated with clear, simple explanations. Thank u

Simple, great explanation of this difference. Thanks! 👍

While not as Robust as a SAN, the redundancy on most NAS systems can equal the redundancy of SAN's - in the example given if the power supply goes out the NAS is (presumably) gone and not available - but the same is true of a SAN if there is only one power supply... point being is that both can have two power supplies. Both can use RAID for data resiliency. The SAN can have two Fibre Channel connections to remove single point of failure. This is where the NAS is somewhat exposed as it's a little tougher to provide redundant connection - but not impossible. While I understand that this is just a brief snapshot of the technologies, but I believe it wasn't fairly represented in this regard.

fast , especific , organized , astonishing job !

1:24 why did it explode? 😭😭

My teacher left us to study own and i somehow manage to learn on my own on this topic. You should be my teacher then.

High End NAS has the same feature you mentioned about SAN

Perfectly explained. Exactly how I wanted to know bout SAN vs NAS. Can you do a video on VSAN?

Very good nice and clear explanation, love the animation as well :)

Good animation & information

Okay, I have just 1 question to ask: Why can’t others (KZfaqrs) make and explain videos like yours? Your termination is just so easy to follow. You don’t seem to be going on and on. Believe me, I value you’re videos. Thank you ever so kindly. 🙏🏻

very good accent, i'm french and i understand everything , thanks a lot !!!! i do understand very well now ! and these explications are very nice !

Extremely well explained! Thank you!

I used to stand up server systems that contained a large storage device. The weird thing was that it was the form factor of a NAS, but we connected it with fiber channel and it served as a local hard drive just like a SAN.

Hey man, you are the best, congratulation. I will enjoy so much if you make more video. Thanks

Good video. :) HBA network cards with fibre channel cables are used in SAN. Tape Library devices are designed to use SAN but they are really expensive. SAN can be a network solution for backup purposes or application storing data (Databases of Exchange or SQL).

thanks for the video, you did a great job explaining it in a very simple way :-)

As a very simple explanation that will be true enough for anyone who needs one, you can think of SAN as a networked harddisk controller, whereas NAS is more like a Google Drive. You send and receive files to/from your NAS, but when you add a "disk" to your SAN, it appears on your PC as if you had connected it through USB or something.

Love the Videos, you make more sense than my tutor haha.. But seriously, these are helping so much with my understanding. Now to find good references for my assignments :)

This video has an oversimplified version of a NAS. High end NASes have fault tolerance so that when one NAS machine is offline, the other NAS can take over automatically. For Synology NASes it's called this High Availability. Synology NAS also offers iSCSI and other connectivity technologies that speed up the data transfer. Basically, if you want to have certain SAN features , you don't have to shell out the big bucks for a SAN solution. A high-end NAS can satisfy that just as well at a fraction of the cost. No, when a NAS goes down, it does not explode with shrapnel flying all over.

What a wonderful and layman explanation you indeed get a concept of SAN from this video 👍👍

I love the attention to detail when the NAS blows up and shoots a drive on to the pc while leaving a mark. Amazing videos!

I run a 2 SANs in my Basement where my vsphere HA Cluster life :) - 2 or 3 HPE DL380p G8 with SFP+FC and TrueNAS Baremetal install isn‘t anymore expensive those times. For sure, i connect my LUNs thru iSCSI Multipath IO and the SAN Network is my only Network with dual 10 GBe connected to 2 MicroTik CRS309-1G-8S+IN for Failover. In production State i do RoundRobin Balancing over both 10GBe Connections - Run like a charm! (Pay special Attention on your HBA Controller, the builtin P420i from HP is not recommended for ZFS)

Simple Clear, thank you so much for shairing the video.

was planning on making a SAN for my home network storage but the price doesnt makes SANs

Your all videos are awesome Thank you so much for uploading such a great content on KZfaq God bless you

I know the answer even before u speak NAS is the reverse of SAN

One place I worked had a Room full of EMC Fridge-sized cabinets/ When we had to prepared for a storm, we called a number, and fuel a dozen trucks showed up and parked outside the building in a designated parking pad reserved for them. And the first truck connected to our generator. IN our case we added storage by the room with more EMC fridges. 12 at a time. they came ready to put drives in pallets of the drive. We had pallets of spare drives on hand. We also had a destruction machine. load the drive-in and chunks of metal and bits and pieces came out after horrendous noises and suffering on the part of the sacrificed drives. Those pieces were securely transported to a blast furnace. to be turned into slag by the pallet-sized bin. I have no idea what the data was. I was just an application test and never got close to anything secure. I even had to have security escort me to the washroom and back.

I saved this video mostly because the COMMENTS are correct... the video is SEVERELY lacking and should take a note from the comments. Further, the way the connections are illustrated is just incomplete and gives a false idea.

You guys are fast becoming my favourite channel - thanks a million!

Man you absolutely wrong. NAS sure can have more than one Power Suppy. And there could be more NASs in the network, and there sure could be more than one switch in ethernet network. And SAN also could be not redundand

To the point explanation. Thank you very much.

To be fair, if it's QSFP+ connectors for the fibre, if you put everything close enough together, you won't need to go fibre, just buy 1m direct attached QSFP+ cables.

There are lot of NAS out there as an example Isilon (EMC product) that supports redundancy even if node goes down there wont be any affect on NAS even if whole cluster goes down you can use superna eye glass for disaster recovery purposes to replicate/mirror data.

Really love your video teaching and animation man... Please make a video of VSAN aswell

thanks mate, your easy to understand animation for this topic, its very very basic definition for NAS vs SAN and all kind of IT tech erupted in war against you. Its not a PhD thesis but simple and easy to understand video for those who have no clue at all. Its not lecture for Storage Data experts to deploy assets for banks or stock exchanges etc. get some life. Before watching this animation, i had no ideo about SAN. now i do have SOME info many many thanks for taking my very very small time and giving me what i wanted.

Great Job has done every time on these videos. Keep it up the good work!

Great video. You made me understand the difference in just 4 minutes! Thanks

i was just wondering about this. you're the bomb man

Enjoyed this video, simple and easily understood. Could you do one on Hyperconvergence? :)

Nas is just San backwards. There is your answer folks

Extremely exact and to the point information! Thank you so much...

That's exactly what I need to watch. Thanks for sharing!

In a SAN switch configuration, 8G instead of 16G performs just as well as Ethernet 10G. However, in SAN switches, the fiber optics in the Gbic modules are reduced and errors are frequent, creating another point of failure.

Good explain! Thank You, Guy!

Here's the simplest way to think about NAS vs. SAN. A NAS serves files, and a SAN serves blocks.

Fantastic video! I learned so much so quickly. Thank you!

Not a bad video, but important to note that things like redundant power supplies and online capacity upgrades are standard features of large SMB-grade NAS devices, and don’t necessarily require a costly SAN.

I just really wanted the title to be “Network Attached Storage vs Storage Attached Network”.